Bothell residents press council to remove procedural barriers to small‑scale infill

Residents and supporters asked the Bothell City Council on Tuesday to make it easier for homeowners to build modest, neighborhood‑scale homes that comply with state middle‑housing laws.

“On paper, middle housing is permitted. But in practice, you have made it infeasible between frontage improvements that force homeowners to do the job of public works and a rigid code interpretation,” an unidentified speaker said during public comment, arguing a local project had been effectively blocked. Several other residents urged action to let smaller projects proceed without the high fees and procedural hurdles they said favor large developers.

“Gentle infill matters because it allows families to stay rooted,” said Christina Holly, a Bothell resident and parent, who also asked the city to plan proactively to protect immigrant residents in the event of expanded federal enforcement activity. Laurie Dunham, a real‑estate agent, recommended smaller unit footprints and a modest developer fee that could be saved for future bike‑lane construction rather than forcing homeowners to build partial bike infrastructure immediately.

Applicant co‑owner Shauna Bufard told the council the dispute is a legal‑hierarchy issue: “It seems like there's a matter of legal hierarchy here that this state law should preempt the city code,” she said, referencing HB 1110 and HB 1337. Several speakers said the city had declined to issue a written, appealable decision unless the applicant paid for a director's interpretation — a requirement they described as a due‑process barrier that effectively steers small builders toward larger, more expensive projects.

City manager Stanner responded that staff follows state law and that the city has been in contact with the Department of Commerce. He said staff will follow up with the applicant and planned a six‑month development snapshot for council; additionally, he scheduled a study session for Feb. 3 to present the pipeline of projects and show whether outcomes match the code’s intent. “We will reach back out to the applicant… and we are continuing to review, and make sure that there's as much clarity as possible,” Stanner said.

Several commenters asked the council to direct staff to apply HB 1337 on lots where higher density already applies, arguing the statute prohibits safe‑harbor caps for accessory dwelling units under those conditions. Supporters framed the issue as both a legal interpretation and a question of equitable access: they said procedural costs and unclear written guidance limit who can build and who can remain in the city.

The council did not take formal action on the infill complaints at the meeting; staff committed to follow up with the applicant, the Department of Commerce, and to report back to council in the coming weeks. The next procedural step the city announced was the Feb. 3 study session to show what the existing code has produced and to consider adjustments based on that review.